Jump to content

PETA

rico

By rico
in Colonial Crester's Corner

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply
rico

rico

Posted
  • Author
Posted
8 minutes ago, Leathernecks said:

Your first post said  "Regardless of that was legal, it was unnecessary."  Don't try to turn this into an education argument.  You made a typo (which we all do from time to time) and made zero mention of what "that" and "it" were referring to.  The first time I read your comment, I wasn't sure if you meant the act of catching the shark, posting the picture, or even the article itself.  For all I knew, you were a big hunter a fisher and thought that having an article about it was the thing that was unnecessary.

Was it necessary for you to be rude to me about an innocent comment I made?  No, but you did it anyways.  I'm out of this one.  Enjoy the rest of your night.

Hang in there bro!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KoB2011

KoB2011

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Leathernecks said:

Your first post said  "Regardless of that was legal, it was unnecessary."  Don't try to turn this into an education argument.  You made a typo (which we all do from time to time) and made zero mention of what "that" and "it" were referring to.  The first time I read your comment, I wasn't sure if you meant the act of catching the shark, posting the picture, or even the article itself.  For all I knew, you were a big hunter a fisher and thought that having an article about it was the thing that was unnecessary.

Was it necessary for you to be rude to me about an innocent comment I made?  No, but you did it anyways.  I'm out of this one.  Enjoy the rest of your night.

I don't see my comment as anymore rude than yours, but either way, enjoy your evening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KoB2011

KoB2011

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Leathernecks said:

Really didn't think my first comment was.  If it came off that way, my bad.

Thanks.

It may not have been,  I was already emotionally involved in the conversation and you weren't. It is probably my bias saying that. 

 

:cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KoB2011

KoB2011

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, rico said:

The point is you don't understand fishing.  But yet you reply in this thread.

Because I didn't know a state law I'm not able to respond to a thread that you titled PETA and is about a potential violation of law with regard to animal cruelty? What's the logic there?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rico

rico

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, KoB2011 said:

Because I didn't know a state law I'm not able to respond to a thread that you titled PETA and is about a potential violation of law with regard to animal cruelty? What's the logic there?

 

So you know Florida laws?  Animal cruelty?  Wow.  You take a hook out of a shark's mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrflynn03

mrflynn03

Posted
Posted

If someone doesn't grow up learning to hunt or fish or spend time outdoors hiking or camping then these things can seem unnecessary.  

But they are not to those who grew up with it. Or found it later in life.

Its all about connecting with nature and the natural order. Believe it or not humans are animals and still maintain the instincts that put us on top of the food chain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KoB2011

KoB2011

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

If someone doesn't grow up learning to hunt or fish or spend time outdoors hiking or camping then these things can seem unnecessary.  

But they are not to those who grew up with it. Or found it later in life.

Its all about connecting with nature and the natural order. Believe it or not humans are animals and still maintain the instincts that put us on top of the food chain. 

1) enjoying it and it being necessary aren't the same. I even said in the gun thread I had no interest in taking away people's ability to do this.

2) yes, humans are apes; no more and no less. We made it to the top of the food chain because of our intellect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reacher

Reacher

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

If someone doesn't grow up learning to hunt or fish or spend time outdoors hiking or camping then these things can seem unnecessary.  

But they are not to those who grew up with it. Or found it later in life.

Its all about connecting with nature and the natural order. Believe it or not humans are animals and still maintain the instincts that put us on top of the food chain. 

I agree. Sometimes it is necessary to get away from ones job or family to relax, think, recharge... Some people might do this going to an art museum. Others hiking in a mountain. As Rico well knows, millions of us do enjoy the pleasure of fishing streams, lakes and oceans. For some, it is necessary as a way to provide food for their family or income for themselves. Or even necessary to reduce stress and live a longer happier more fulfilling life.

 

3 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

1) enjoying it and it being necessary aren't the same. I even said in the gun thread I had no interest in taking away people's ability to do this.

2) yes, humans are apes; no more and no less. We made it to the top of the food chain because of our intellect. 

1) They can be however

2) Umm, you may wish to rethink the use of the word "are". I could buy "have some similiarities with" or  "share some common DNA" but humans are distinctly different than apes. For example, you recently posted a pic of a dancing human. When given a choice between human and ape, how many people would you have to ask before one identified that human as an ape? :coffee:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KoB2011

KoB2011

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Reacher said:

 

1) They can be however

2) Umm, you may wish to rethink the use of the word "are". I could buy "have some similiarities with" or  "share some common DNA" but humans are distinctly different than apes. For example, you recently posted a pic of a dancing human. When given a choice between human and ape, how many people would you have to ask before one identified that human as an ape? :coffee:

1) sure, they can be. But in the specific instance that I was discussing its pretty obvious that isn't the case. 

2) humans are apes. It's a scientific fact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reacher

Reacher

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

1) sure, they can be. But in the specific instance that I was discussing its pretty obvious that isn't the case. 

2) humans are apes. It's a scientific fact. 

Why are there separate classifications for Homo sapiens and Homininae? Would you marry an ape from the zoo?

Even the allegation of common ancestry for humans and apes has scholars on both sides of the issue so it may not be as factual as you think. 

I won't go any further with this as the creationism vs evolution debate is obviously a separate thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KoB2011

KoB2011

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Reacher said:

Why are there separate classifications for Homo sapiens and Homininae? Would you marry an ape from the zoo?

Even the allegation of common ancestry for humans and apes has scholars on both sides of the issue so it may not be as factual as you think. 

I won't go any further with this as the creationism vs evolution debate is obviously a separate thread. 

What's your source? That's utter insanity; humans are considered a great ape. It has nothing to do with creationism, it has to do with how we are scientifically classified. Please, please post your link that says we aren't great apes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reacher

Reacher

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

And there aren't separate classifications for homo sapiens and homininae. Homo sapiens are a homininae. 

My biology is a bit rusty. I'm sorry.

The genus Homo sapien is different than the genus Pan or Gorillini all of which fall under the sub family Hominae. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae

You are correct that homo sapiens are (a genus under) hominae but I stand by my assertion that humans are not apes as evidenced by their separate scientific classifications. They are separate but related species that have evolved from the same ancestor. I see you conveniently forgot to reply about whether you would marry an ape and, if there was no difference, that should be acceptable in your view. 

Who says you can't learn anything in the Animal House?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KoB2011

KoB2011

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Reacher said:

My biology is a bit rusty. I'm sorry.

The genus Homo sapien is different than the genus Pan or Gorillini all of which fall under the sub family Hominae. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae

You are correct that homo sapiens are (a genus under) hominae but I stand by my assertion that humans are not apes as evidenced by their separate scientific classifications. They are separate but related species that have evolved from the same ancestor. I see you conveniently forgot to reply about whether you would marry an ape and, if there was no difference, that should be acceptable in your view. 

Who says you can't learn anything in the Animal House?

Great Apes are typically accepted to be homindae; homo sapiens would be included in that.

I can agree there is room for debate over rather or not we should be, but the reality is that is how we are classified scientifically. Specifically because, although great apes all have exceptional brain capacity, hominains (humans and other extinct human-like species) are in a class of their own.  

It doesn't mean we are all the same species; of course, we aren't a gorilla, a chimp or an orangutang. We are all Great Apes which is very different than being the same species. 

The Great Ape classification comes in at the homindae level, which is family and above genus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...